Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Cinema, photography, illustration, philosophy, economics, music, history.

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Found her books through the scholarship essay and realized they were about me. Avid reader and supporter of Rand's philosophies.
  • School or University
    Academy of Art University

Mstark's Achievements


Novice (2/7)



  1. That's how I feel about the situation. He might be a terrible person. However those prosecuting seems to be an emotional collective of people who have forgotten about the way trial works. Fact is fact. They don't have fact that he is terrible, so they're working around it because they want to deal punish for the overall concept. They're out for blood. How many people are they going to find and do the same thing to, lacking evidence and using a theory? It's not the way a court should work. The quotes, "We're hopeful that this verdict will pave the way for additional prosecutions in Germany" gives me the chills. Although I know they're trying to get justice against monstrosities, the way in which they're going about it isn't right.
  2. You're absolutely right. (I'm aware this is EXTREMELY topical and I'm correcting a previous statement I made in this specific post for personal reasons). I'm only playing the Devil's Advocate because I'm trying to understand where the line is drawn and what others think about the situation.
  3. In the context of the fact that he was a captured Soviet soldier, who became an SS in the likelihood it was either that or death, I'm curious to know the specific point at which one's own survival is trumped by morality.
  4. Alright. So just to clarify your reasoning, do you think a guard in Guantanamo Bay, or any other governmental detainment facilities should be held accountable for the cruel things which go on while he is working there? How about another soldier on the battlefield who witnesses his brother in arms needlessly torture enemies? Should he be held accountable for someone else's actions? At which point do other people's actions become your own responsibility? Where do you draw the line? And when you say he deserves a death sentence are you speaking for Objectivism and if so, explain.
  5. I read this article in the Huffington Post online this morning and I thought it was strange and somehow not right. For the cliffnote version, a "case" has finally gone through the courts after 68 years from the event, in which a man is being charged as an accessory to murder for 28,000+ deaths which took place for the period of time he served as a guard in the Sobibor camp (only a few months). The thing that bothered me, was this statement: "There was no evidence that Demjanjuk committed a specific crime. The prosecution was based on the theory that if Demjanjuk was at the camp, he was a participant in the killing - the first time such a legal argument has been made in German courts." Anyone's thoughts? To me, that's a generality lacking any specific ties to his behavior and individual actions. The court is reacting out of pure spite and thrist for revenge of a mislead generation. It's an emotional ruling which lacks logic in my opinion, regardless of how I feel about nazism. Click here to read the article
  6. That's how I feel also. Although it basically encompasses my entire life thus far, but my opinions and decisions made when choosing or making art are reflections of my overall philosophy which resides in those other branches. It's a fairly blatant facet of expression of one's world view and inner thoughts.
  7. Thanks! I figured it was along the Romantic stream. I would have been surprised if she was referring to something along the lines of Vivaldi. Rachmaninoff seems fitting.
  8. I'm unsure if this has been discussed before, but I'm very curious about what type of music Halley's symphonies were supposed to be like. Does anyone know specifically the type of orchestra his music sounded like? Was it Romantic, Baroque etc? I also don't know the type of music she liked specifically, which obviously would reflect the type of sound he would have created. Personally, the one composer I equate with Hally is Ralph Vaughan Williams, but that's simply because he's one of my favourite composers. Perhaps that is not the style she intended and is indeed something more along the lines of Mozart. Ideas?
  9. Yes, they are. Anyone other than Objectivists wouldn't push to make a movie like this, especially in terms of Hollywood, where the more liberal crowd has control. That's why it's so disappointing that it was mediocre. They disregarded the philosophy, or at least lost sight of it when creating the script. However, The Fountainhead isn't much better. I finally watched it, it was on Demand last year, but it was exhausting and much more like a stage play than anything. Yes, the screenplay was written by Rand, however the film itself is still a bunch of talking heads, with extremely stilted acting. That was the time period and how the book was written, but it doesn't translate emotionally because of the type of filmmaking. The visuals are great thanks to King Vidor, with jagged lines and shadows. Lots of fantastic architectural choices. But I feel like we now could make a FANTASTIC Fountainhead adaptation because the acting style has changed and the camera has also changed in the way it interacts with the actors. Older films tended to stay away, set shots, blocking like a theatre stage. Now we can become much more intimate with the actors in terms of connection with the audience through the lens. In otherwords, like Atlas Shrugged's adaptation it's also somewhat of a cliff-note version of the book, lacking the emotional intensity it deserves.
  10. Yes, the things they chose to exclude and include seemed very strange. Who decided to have Galt wandering around in the shadows with a fedora and popped collar, like a caricature of a film noir detective? Why did he appear in the beginning? It comes across completely ridiculous at times, if not convoluted and boring for the person who hasn't read the book and is trying to gather all the information regarding "who works for who and who owns what" in the first act of the film. Her philosophies are randomly thrown around like a small voice over from Dagny asking briefly like debating college student: "What is with all this altruism? Can't people see it only makes things worse?" And never mentioning it again. To me it seems like the film was made for the purpose of appealing to those who have already read the book because of the jumble of information, and cliffnote version of concepts. If this is the case, people would have to buy the book in order to actually understand what was so great about it, as well as NOT wait a year to find out what happens in the plot, due to the cliffhanger. I do believe even with their limited budget they still could have done a fantastic job, but the script itself was flawed and the decisions made from then on only made it worse. As with anything in Rand's books and basic teachings of economics and practicality: intentions are very different from results. The producers' intention to do justice to Rand isn't what matters here, it is the result... which happens to be a poor film.
  11. I'll rephrase. The film is hurting Objectivism in context with filmmaking, which is what matters to me. What I'm interpreting in terms of a reaction, is from people who also understand filmmaking in the same way. Lets say I have a conversation with someone has seen Atlas Shrugged and is in the industry or somehow related to the art, but doesn't understand Objectivism. They're immidiate opinion of Objectivism is a big joke because the film reflected it's concepts poorly. Those are the people I associate with, and therefore I don't enjoy the thought of Atlas Shrugged having been misportrayed in my "chosen field". That being said, if wider "mainstream audiences" don't understand the flaws in the film and decide to read the book, that's great for money making in terms of the book, not necessarily Objectivism, but time will tell. But whether or not they agree with it, if a movie based on a book comes out, the numbers always spike for a time.
  12. Exactly. I tried to explain that to the friend I saw the film with. He agreed it was cheesy and poorly acted, but liked it because of what it stood for. I was appauled because that is the antithesis of Objectivism. If Ayn Rand knew people were accepting this film in spite of it's many flaws, she would be outraged. I think the film is only hurting Objectivism, especially if many people are liking it for the sake of liking it. It is called Objectivism after all. Not subjectivism.
  13. That's funny. I wonder why? Is it just because of the shape?
  14. Thank you! Of course not. Anyone who actually believes in Objectivism should understand that supporting this sub-par film simply because of it's relationship to Objectivism is ridiculous. The entire point of objectivism is to be objective and use logic and reason, and emotion as a reaction to that logic. Therefore liking Atlas Shrugged the film for the sake of liking it is a complete contradiction of Rand's philosophies. I was extremely appauled when my friend, who I saw it with said "yeah, I know it was cheesy and bad" but he liked it because of what it was supposed to achieve. Which makes it a very easy to argue against the person who likes it, unless they are convinced it truly is a great film. Being a film major I think I have a fairly trustworthy opinion.
  15. **Mod Note: Merged topic. Originally "Atlas Shrugged film (2011)" -Dante** I just saw it yesterday, opening day. The theatre was not packed, but I wouldn't have expected it to be where I live (the Bay Area). I was skeptical before seeing it because of the low budget and no-name cast, but hoping to see something unique and enjoyable. It was not a good movie. Only, perhaps, as a cheap cliffnotes guide to the book, but it was very cheesy, the acting wasn't spectacular (however, I don't know whether to equate that with the directing choices or not) and frankly boring. The first act was a jumbled mess, which didn't give anyone any reason to like this character or that. The climax of the John Galt line was not even close to the thrill it was in the book and even their, Hank & Dagny romance seemed boring and lacking chemistry-the lust in their relationship doesn't exist. The last scene was something nearly out of Gone With the Wind, where Scarlet stands on the hilltop against a bright orange background, however instead Dagny screams at the top of her lungs as she watches Ellis Wyatt's oil burn in the hills-the first sign of emotion on her face throughout the film. For those who say that she is emotionless in the book, see this film and you'll see what I mean. She doesn't have any screen presence. In other words, I'm pretty disappointed and can only hope they learn from their mistakes before making Part II.
  • Create New...